Author Archives: Jack Meredith

Dominic Rider is right about the moment we are in. The transatlantic guarantee is wobbling; Europe is being reminded, again, that dependence is not a strategy. When Washington treats alliances as transactional, Europeans either grow up fast or get pushed around slowly. The Liberal Democrats should say what comes next.

Where I part company with Dominic is on the destination. He argues for “confederation, not a superstate”. That contrast misses the real problem. Europe already exercises power: the single market sets rules, sanctions shape foreign policy, and standards shape economies. The question is not whether Europe will have power; it is whether that power is democratically governed and has clear lines of responsibility.

A confederation keeps the fog. It offers reassurance, but it leaves the constitutional flaw untouched: paralysis. Dominic is right that unanimity lets one government block action. Qualified majority voting helps, but procedure alone will not fix a system designed to avoid clarity. A Europe that wants to act like a strategic player needs institutions built for action, not for reassuring capitals.

Federalism is the democratic solution. A federal United States of Europe is not the abolition of nations; it is the constitutional ordering of shared power. It means voters can see who governs, what they control, and how to change course. That is not a “superstate”. It is power placed under law, limited by a written settlement, and answerable to citizens.

The principle is simple: do together what must be done together; keep the rest close to home. Defence, trade, external borders, major infrastructure, and climate commitments belong at the federal level because they are cross-border by nature. Taxation, welfare, health, education, culture, and constitutional arrangements should remain national, devolved, or local because diversity is a strength. Subsidiarity should not be a slogan; it should be enforceable.

Defence is the acid test. Pooled procurement is valuable, but deterrence cannot rest on voluntary top-ups and ad hoc deals that unravel whenever politics shift. If Europeans want strategic autonomy, they need a single security actor: capability planning that matches threats, industrial scale to reduce duplication, and a chain of command that is democratically accountable. Committees do not deter revisionist powers; credible forces and clear commitments do.

The “superstate” fear is real, but it is misaimed. What people resent is unaccountable decision-making. The EU already has a far-reaching influence, just in a hybrid form where citizens struggle to “throw the rascals out”. Federalism does not add power for fun; it puts existing power under democratic control, clarifies competencies, and makes responsibility legible.

That is also the British opportunity. Public opinion has shifted; more voters now believe Brexit was a mistake. Yet that sentiment will remain politically inert unless someone offers a serious answer to the next question: rejoin to do what? Labour treats Europe as a problem to be managed, not an opportunity to be seized. Conservatives are trapped by their own coalition. The Liberal Democrats have the freedom, and the duty, to lead.

But leading means more than tiptoeing back into yesterday’s Europe. People can smell timidity. They will not rally to “rejoin, but change nothing”. A federal programme is clearer: Britain should return to help build a Europe that can defend itself, compete economically, and uphold liberal values, not just with speeches.

So what should Liberal Democrats argue for? Treaty reform towards a constitutional settlement: an elected European executive accountable to an elected parliament; a senate of states to protect national voice through transparent votes; majority decision-making where collective action is required; and hard subsidiarity so everything not explicitly federal stays closer to the citizen. That is how you make European power democratic.